Do you miss old D&D class names?

[Sigdel]

What's in a name? I liked the titles, but they were a little before my time. They just seemed to add a little more... Colour to the game. I am not too fond of the fact that leveling up is just a number and not an aquired title. Of course how you get these titles is beyond me. Was their a governing force behind these titles? At level five did you get an official notice saying "Congradulations ______! You are now an Adept! And are entitled to all the rights and privliges due to the title of Adept."
If anyone knows where I can find these titles and a practical way to apply them to a 3.5 world, it would be very cool.

 

[EricNoah]

I only miss them in the same way that I miss the fresh "it's all new" feeling of my first few years playing D&D. That's nostalgia, though. Honestly, "magic-user"? No, I don't miss that.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Nope, in fact I called 'Magic Users' wizards before they changed the name. With the exception of one Magic Userer in the party... (greedy bugger...)

And I played a rogue who didn't steal stuff or pick pockets, so why was he a 'thief'?

The Auld Grump

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

EDIT: Ugh, that's what comes of posting on two threads...

I don't reall miss the old class names. Magic user was imprecise (clerics use magic, too). Thief was TOO precise, although rogue still doesn't cut it, IMO. I hope 4e eventually adopts expert.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

From a pure playability standpoint, the psionics rules are almost certainly superior to the magic rules.

But the Tolkien-inspired epic fantasy that you're so sick of (an understandable state) isn't properly sword and sorcery. Conan or the Grey Mouser? S&S. Frodo and Aragon? Epic fantasy. Mind well the difference, for sword and sorcery is by no means an overdone genre, and could really do with a good renaissance.

In fact, psionics is probably more suitable to most sword and sorcery games than standard D&D anyway. A lot of sword and sorcery has a pseudo-science background (Conan's demons often came from outer space, John Norman's ever-controversial Gor was an alien planet, etc.).

Psst...that's one thread over.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

I not only miss the class names, but the old 1E level names. "25 more xps and I'm an Acolyte!! Whoopie!"

It was especially funny when characters levelled up in the middle of a session.

"Guys, I'm an acolyte now. Don't call me an initiate anymore."

"What the hell are ya talking about? Yesterday you were an initiate!"

"Yeah, but after we just killed that gibbering mouther, I've realized that I'm now an acolyte."



Man, those level titles were stoopid.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Man, those level titles were stoopid.

They work wonderful as titles among an organization. Churches, guilds, etc. IMC, they're still XP dependent but you don't just turn into an Acolyte after getting more XP. The organization has to grant your higher rank based on achievements...and since XP is a good way of representing that...

A lot like how some people require training for feats and before levelling up.

 

[Captain Loincloth]

IT really happened in 2nd edition, sort of .


Anybody miss the original name for the fighter class?

That was Fighting Man, wasn't it?

 

[Romnipotent]

Never used them, I got dragged in to a 3e group, we never played older editions.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

It would probably be good in future editions to create level titles (at least for the core classes) like in previous editions, but just make it an optional rule. There seems to be a lot of people who liked those old titles and it makes things simpler when trying to come up with one for your character. Of course, it not's always appropriate but it's a good starting point.